Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- S.M. Tariq Khawaja vs Registrar Cooperative Societies, Islamabad and 32021 [M] C L R 761, 2020 CLC 653 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-12-17Read full judgment →
- S. Shafique-Ur-Rehman through LRs vs Ministry Of Housing And Works2020 MLD 1428 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
- Rustam vs The State2020 SHC 1058 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
- Rustam vs Province Of Sindh and others2020 YLR 1001 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-04Read full judgment →
- Rustam Ali and others vs Ghulam Waris and others2020 YLR 1437 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-12Read full judgment →
- Ruqqiya Atta vs Secretary, Education Department, Civil Secretariat Quetta2020 PLC (C.S) 368, 2020 PLJ Quetta 35 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment as a Physical Training Instructor (PTI) following a decision by the Complaint Redressal Cell (CRC) which favored respondent No. 4. The core legal question was whether the appointment of a candidate could be implicitly terminated by the appointment of another person without following due process or issuing a formal termination order. The Court held that the petitioner’s appointment, having been issued by a competent authority, remained intact as no formal order of cancellation or termination was ever passed. The Court emphasized that the issuance of an appointment order in favor of another candidate does not automatically terminate the service of an existing employee. Furthermore, the authorities failed to adhere to the procedural requirements of the Recruitment Policy 2014. The Court established the principle that if authorities intend to terminate an employee's service, they must adopt the legal course provided by applicable law and rules; an implicit termination through the appointment of a successor is legally insufficient and invalid.
Questions settled- Can an appointment order be implicitly terminated by the appointment of another candidate to a similar post?
- Does the decision of a Complaint Redressal Cell automatically terminate the service of a previously appointed employee without a formal termination order?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable when the petitioner has simultaneously approached the Service Tribunal for the same relief?
- Sain Muhammad & 04 others vs Muhammad Aslam2020 PLC (C.S.) 918, 2021 YLR 924, 2020 PHC 424 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular first appeal challenges a judgment accepting an application under Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which set aside a previous decree obtained through alleged fraud and misrepresentation. The core legal questions concerned the locus standi of a non-party to challenge a decree, the validity of a decree passed without impleading necessary parties, the maintainability of a fresh Section 12(2) application after a prior one was returned for lack of jurisdiction, and the correct forum for such applications following shifts in judicial precedent. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the decree was obtained through fraud and was void. It affirmed that a non-party whose rights are jeopardized by a fraudulent decree has standing to invoke Section 12(2) CPC. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a decree passed without impleading necessary parties is a nullity. It held that changes in judicial precedent regarding the forum for Section 12(2) applications operate prospectively and do not invalidate proceedings already pending under the previous legal understanding. Ultimately, the Court emphasized that technicalities should not obstruct the administration of justice.
Questions settled- Can a person who was not a party to the original suit file an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a decree obtained without impleading necessary parties liable to be set aside?
- Does a change in judicial precedent regarding the forum for Section 12(2) applications apply retrospectively to pending proceedings?
- Can a fresh application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be filed after a previous application was returned for lack of jurisdiction?
- Rukhsana Muzammil vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 994 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an FIR for Qatl-i-Amd with an unexplained delay, where the petitioner was not named in the initial report but later nominated through a supplementary statement with an allegation of raising a lalkara. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given her role, lack of injuries attributed to her, and the principle of consistency with co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was empty-handed, caused no injuries, was similarly situated to another co-accused granted bail, and the imputation of a lalkara required further inquiry, the ad-interim pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that liberty is a valuable constitutional right and bail cannot be refused solely due to involvement in a heinous offence when malafide and role attribution warrant relief.
Questions settled- Whether an accused nominated through a supplementary statement with the allegation of raising a lalkara is entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground of the accused's involvement in a heinous offence?
- Whether the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted pre-arrest bail?
- Rozi Khan and others vs The State and othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 720, 2020 MLD 580 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arose from a judgment of the Sessions Judge Pishin, whereby the appellant Rozi Khan was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions pertained to the credibility of closely related eyewitnesses whose conduct was unnatural, the legal effect of inordinate delays in lodging the First Information Report and conducting the post-mortem examination, and the safe administration of criminal justice in capital cases. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting fatal flaws including unexplained delays, material improvements in the ocular account through supplementary statements, and the unnatural conduct of eyewitnesses who remained unhurt and failed to protect the deceased. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the connected revision petition. The key principle laid down is that where the testimony of related eyewitnesses lacks corroboration, is contradicted by medical evidence, and is accompanied by unnatural conduct and suspicious delays, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt resulting in an acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report casts serious doubt on the prosecution case?
- Can the uncorroborated testimony of related eyewitnesses be relied upon when their conduct at the time of the incident is unnatural and inconsistent with normal human behavior?
- Does a material contradiction between the ocular account and the medical report regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased undermine the credibility of the prosecution witnesses?
- Is an accused entitled to an acquittal where the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, in accordance with the golden rule of the benefit of the doubt?
- Rotocast Engineering Co (Pvt) Ltd vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1214 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
- Roshan Ara and others vs Abdul Karim and others2020 CLC 1670 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-11Read full judgment →
- Roomi Foods (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Joint Registrar of Companies and others2020 CLD 900 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under sections 279 to 282 of the Companies Act, 2017, seeking court sanction for a Scheme of Arrangement involving the bifurcation of the restaurant and poultry business of the transferor company, Roomi Foods (Pvt.) Ltd., into two separate transferee companies, Passion Foods (Pvt.) Ltd. and Roomi Poultry (Pvt.) Ltd. The core legal question was whether the court should sanction the proposed Scheme of Arrangement despite objections raised by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan regarding shareholding discrepancies and procedural compliance. The court allowed the petition and sanctioned the scheme, finding that the objections were adequately addressed or cured. The court affirmed the principle that where shareholders and creditors have unanimously approved a scheme of arrangement, including the share swap ratio, the court should not interfere with their commercial business decision unless the scheme is shown to be unfair, unreasonable, or against the national interest. Shareholders are the best judges of their own interests, and in the absence of challenges from them, the proposed arrangement is deemed fair and reasonable.
Questions settled- Can a court sanction a Scheme of Arrangement if the shareholders and creditors have unanimously approved the proposal?
- Should a court interfere with a share swap arrangement approved by the shareholders of the involved companies?
- Is a court required to withhold sanction for a merger or bifurcation scheme if the shareholders have not challenged the fairness of the arrangement?
- Rooh-ul-Amin & another vs The State & another2020 PHC 274 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-13Read full judgment →
- Roidad Khan vs The State & another2020 PHC 78, 2022 MLD 660 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-02Read full judgment →
- Ro-540 Superintendent Of Rangers Akbar Ali vs Director General, Pakistan2020 PLJ Tr.C. (Service) 70 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 was filed by the appellant challenging the punishment of Severe Reprimand imposed under the Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1967 for failing to vacate official married accommodation despite multiple notices. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary penalty and the rejection of the appellant's departmental appeal were justified given his failure to surrender possession of the official premises. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the appellant was afforded ample opportunity, received consecutive vacation orders, and had his reasons for retention duly considered by the authorities before the disciplinary action was initiated. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as devoid of merits, laying down the principle that failure to comply with lawful directives to vacate official accommodation after due notice warrants disciplinary penalization.
Questions settled- Whether a public servant can be penalized with a severe reprimand for failing to vacate official accommodation after multiple notices?
- Does the failure of a subordinate authority to forward an extension application vitiate subsequent disciplinary proceedings when the underlying reasons for retention were duly considered?
- Whether an appeal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 is maintainable against an order of severe reprimand arising from a disciplinary infraction?
- Rizwana Altaf vs Chief justice, High Court of Sindh through its Registrar2020 PLC (C.S.) 1244, 2020 SCMR 1401, 2021 PLJ SC 15, 2020 SCP 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed against the dismissal of an appeal by the Sindh Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, which had upheld the dispensing of the petitioner's services as a Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate during her probationary period under Rule 9(2) of the Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994. The core legal question was whether the competent authority could dispense with the services of a probationer judge without a regular inquiry upon discovering deliberate concealment of past government employment and misrepresentation regarding her status as a practicing advocate. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's deliberate withholding of information in her job application regarding her ongoing employment as a primary school teacher and her improper procurement of a High Court advocate license justified the termination of her probationary service. The Court laid down the principle that the services of a probationer can be validly dispensed with on the basis of undeniable material regarding concealment and misrepresentation without the necessity of conducting a regular departmental inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether the services of a probationary judge can be dispensed with without conducting a regular inquiry when there is undeniable material of concealment and misrepresentation?
- Does past misrepresentation regarding enrollment as an advocate and concealment of government employment justify the termination of a judicial officer during probation?
- Can past administrative irregularities in the appointment of other individuals be invoked under the principle of discrimination to retain a tainted appointment?
- Rizwana Akhtar, etc vs Government of Punjab through Mines Labour2020 LHC 1566 · Lahore High Court · 2020-07-16Read full judgment →
- Rizwan vs The State2020 MLD 59, 2021 KLR Criminal Cases 117, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 488 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant Rizwan seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 158 of 2019 registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1300 grams of Charas and 300 grams of Crystal. The core legal question is whether an accused is entitled to bail when the recovered narcotic quantity falls within a borderline range between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and where the accused suffers from a serious illness. The Balochistan High Court held that the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given the borderline quantity and the medical condition of the applicant, and accordingly granted bail. The key principles laid down are that where a recovered narcotic quantity marginally exceeds a threshold, making it a borderline case, the lesser quantum of sentence is considered for bail, and that serious medical conditions such as cancer warrant the grant of bail when continued detention poses a danger to life.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the recovered quantity of narcotics falls on the borderline between different punishment clauses?
- Does the availability of two different quanta of sentences in a statute require the lesser sentence to be considered for the purpose of bail?
- Can the serious illness of an accused, such as being a cancer patient, serve as a ground for granting bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Rizwan Farooq vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 968 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-10Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Ashraf and another vs Federation of Pakistan, through its Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 02 others2021 [M] C L R 1333, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 605, 2020 IHC 18 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the National Police Bureau and the Ministry of Interior regarding the selection of police officials for United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. The petitioners contended that the SOPs were discriminatory, imposed unauthorized provincial and organizational quotas, and violated the United Nations' own selection guidelines. Furthermore, they argued that the National Police Bureau lacked the competence to issue such policies without the Prime Minister's approval, as required by the Rules of Business, 1973. The Court held that the SOPs were illegal and without lawful authority. It emphasized that while courts generally do not interfere in policy matters, they must intervene when policies violate fundamental rights or statutory requirements. The Court found the quota system discriminatory, violating Article 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, which guarantees equal opportunity in public service. The judgment established that any such policy must be transparent, non-discriminatory, and sanctioned by the competent authority, ensuring that merit is not bypassed by arbitrary quotas that exclude qualified candidates from fair competition.
Questions settled- Does the imposition of provincial and organizational quotas for selection to United Nations Peacekeeping Missions violate Article 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a government policy that is discriminatory and lacks approval from the competent authority be struck down by the High Court?
- Is the National Police Bureau a competent authority to unilaterally issue policy guidelines for overseas peacekeeping mission selections without the Prime Minister's approval?
- Does the right to enter a lawful profession under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include the right to compete for public service appointments on the basis of merit?
- Rizwan alias Jani and others vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1019 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants recorded by the trial court under sections 302, 397, 411, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code, alongside a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the evidentiary value of an unwitnessed occurrence, the legality of a joint identification parade, and the reliability of delayed post-mortem examinations and subsequent recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene, that the identification parade suffered from legal flaws including joint holding and undue delay, and that the medical evidence and forensic recoveries failed to connect the appellants to the crime. Consequently, the court laid down that multiple serious infirmities in the prosecution's case, including doubtful ocular evidence and defective identification proceedings, entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. The appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the death reference was answered in the negative.
Questions settled- Does a joint identification parade of multiple accused persons render the identification proceedings legally defective?
- Can medical evidence independently sustain a conviction when the ocular account of an incident is found to be unreliable?
- Whether delay in conducting a post-mortem examination creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution story in unwitnessed occurrences?
- Is the benefit of the doubt to be extended to an accused when multiple circumstances create serious doubts regarding the prosecution case?
- Rizwan Ali vs Akhtar Hussain Chairman Appeal Committee Pakistan Bar2020 CLC 1322 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-29Read full judgment →
- Rizwan ali & another vs The State2020 SHC 722 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-24Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Ahmed vs Jameel Ahmed and 9 others2020 YLR 366 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-23Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Ahmed Khan & another vs Province of Sindh & 02 others2020 SHC 214 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
- Rifaqatullah vs The State etc2020 PHC 68, 2020 P Cr.L J 1361 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt relying on a dying declaration and the testimony of an alleged eyewitness. The Peshawar High Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court determined that the alleged eyewitness was a "chance witness" whose presence at the crime scene was unproven and whose conduct was unnatural. Furthermore, the court found the dying declaration unreliable as it lacked medical certification regarding the declarant's mental fitness and capacity to speak, especially given the declarant's state of severe shock. The court reaffirmed that a dying declaration is weak evidence requiring independent corroboration and that abscondence alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction when the primary evidence is doubtful. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration that lacks medical certification of the declarant's fitness?
- Does the presence of a chance witness require independent corroboration to be admissible in a criminal trial?
- Is the abscondence of an accused sufficient to prove guilt in the absence of reliable primary evidence?
- What criteria must be met for a court to accept a dying declaration as a reliable piece of evidence?
- Riaz vs The State2020 YLR 1080 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism convicting and sentencing the appellant to two years of rigorous imprisonment under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. Alongside the main appeal, the appellant filed an application seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending the disposal of the appeal, on the ground that the awarded sentence is of a short duration and that he was on bail during the trial. The State prosecutor raised no objection to the suspension given the short sentence. The Sindh High Court held that since the sentence is short and the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future due to a heavy backlog of cases, the sentence ought to be suspended. The court accordingly allowed the application, suspended the conviction and sentence, and directed the release of the appellant on bail subject to furnishing surety.
Questions settled- Can a sentence of two years be considered a short sentence for the purpose of suspension of sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
- Whether the execution of sentence can be suspended when the hearing of an appeal is likely to be delayed due to a heavy backlog of cases?
- Is a convicted person who was on bail during trial entitled to suspension of sentence when given a short term of imprisonment?
- Riaz Hussain vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1478 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a murder case where co-accused were acquitted. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular evidence, the safety of sustaining a conviction on uncorroborated evidence when co-accused on the same set of evidence have been acquitted, and the principle of extending the benefit of the doubt. The Lahore High Court held that since the ocular account was disbelieved regarding the bulk of the accused and co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence, and because the unnatural conduct of eyewitnesses and delayed post-mortem rendered the prosecution's case doubtful, the conviction could not be sustained. The Court laid down that corroborative pieces of evidence like recoveries cannot form the sole basis of conviction when direct testimony is discarded, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be maintained on corroborative evidence alone when the primary direct ocular testimony has been disbelieved?
- Whether an accused can be convicted solely when all co-accused facing the same set of evidence and allegations have been acquitted by the trial court?
- Does a delayed post-mortem examination in a night-time incident at a deserted place cast serious doubt on the presence of eyewitnesses?
- Is it necessary to have multiple circumstances to extend the benefit of doubt to an accused in a criminal trial?
- Riaz Hussain vs State & anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 358 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah, convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the alleged possession of 1070 grams of heroin. The core legal question revolved around whether a misdescription of the contraband as 'charas' instead of 'heroin' in the examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vitiated the trial, alongside contentions regarding police competence and credibility. The Lahore High Court held that while the trial court erred in mentioning 'charas' instead of 'heroin' in the incriminating question, the appropriate course in the interest of justice was to remand the matter rather than evaluate all other contentions on merits. The court laid down the principle that procedural errors in recording a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 that cause ambiguity regarding the substance recovered warrant setting aside the conviction and remanding the case for a fresh statement and re-decision by the trial court.
Questions settled- Does referring to 'charas' instead of 'heroin' in a question under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vitiate a narcotics conviction?
- When can an appellate court remand a criminal case for recording a fresh statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Is an appellant whose conviction is set aside and whose case is remanded entitled to post-arrest bail pending a fresh decision by the trial court?
- Riaz Hussain vs Province of Punjab & 6 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1, 2020 LHC 1892 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the issuance of a show cause notice issued under Section 4 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether an intermediate step in departmental disciplinary proceedings, such as a show cause notice, can be assailed under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, and under what circumstances mala fides can vitiate such administrative action. The Lahore High Court held that a show cause notice is neither an adverse final order nor subject to judicial review unless it is shown to be completely without jurisdiction or issued mala fide. The court emphasized that constitutional petitions against show cause notices are premature and should not be entertained when alternate departmental remedies exist. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether a show cause notice issued in departmental disciplinary proceedings can be challenged through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- What are the exceptional grounds upon which a High Court may interfere with a show cause notice at a pre-mature stage?
- What constitutes legal malice or mala fide in the exercise of administrative powers by public authorities?
- Riaz Hanif Rahi vs Federation Of Pakistan an others2020 PLD Islamabad 175 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
- Riaz alias Jajo vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1547 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the credibility of related and interested witnesses, the establishment of motive, and the determination of whether the act constituted premeditated murder or an offense committed under the heat of passion upon discovering the deceased in the appellant's house during odd hours. The Lahore High Court held that while the prosecution successfully established the appellant's involvement through consistent eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and recovery, the death sentence was unwarranted because the occurrence transpired spontaneously without premeditation after the appellant found the deceased with his brother's wife. Consequently, the court set aside the death sentence and converted the conviction to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing the appellant to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that where an accused commits a homicide under the heat of passion upon finding the deceased in compromising circumstances without premeditation, the capital sentence may be commuted to one under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related and interested witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration if it inspires the court's confidence?
- Does the failure of an accused to appear as a witness under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 strengthen the prosecution's case?
- Can a sentence of death be converted to one under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the homicide is committed under the heat of passion upon discovering the deceased in the accused's house at odd hours?
- Whether minor contradictions in supplementary statements outweigh consistent statements made in the first information report and during trial?
- Riaz Ahmed vs Ned University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi2020 MLD 114 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmed & another vs Accountant General & others2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 427, 2020 SC AJK 92, 2021 PSC 1548 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-07-19Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs The State & another2020 LHC 3049, 2021 YLR 23, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 135 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1110 grams of opium. The core legal question concerns whether a forensic report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, which fails to specify the full protocols and specific tests applied during the analysis of the contraband, constitutes sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution’s reliance on such an inconclusive report was legally insufficient. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that non-compliance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, which mandates the inclusion of full protocols in the analyst's report, renders the evidence unreliable and untrustworthy. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that in cases involving stringent statutory punishments, the standard of proof must be strict, and any failure to meet these evidentiary requirements entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt. The appellant was acquitted accordingly.
Questions settled- Does a forensic report that fails to detail the full protocols and tests applied meet the evidentiary requirements for a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution's forensic evidence is deemed inconclusive or unreliable due to non-compliance with statutory reporting rules?
- Does Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 mandate the inclusion of full testing protocols in a government analyst's report?
- Riaz Ahmad vs Asj/Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace, Jahanian Distt. KhanewalPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 759 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
- Reliance Commodities (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 PTD 1464, 2020 PLD Lahore 632, 2020 LHC 1266, 2020 PLJ Lahore 420 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged show-cause notices issued by the Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue under Section 122(5A) read with Section 122(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for the recovery of super tax under Section 4B. The petitioner asserted that Section 4B is a self-contained code excluding the general machinery provisions of the Ordinance, that power vested solely in the Commissioner, and that non-framing of rules under Section 4B(6) rendered assessment proceedings void. The High Court held that while Section 4B is an independent charging section, it explicitly incorporates the assessment and collection machinery under Chapter X, including Section 122. It further held that operation of a statutory provision is not dependent on rule-making, and that the Commissioner can delegate powers under Section 210. However, because Section 210(1A) restricts Section 122(5A) amendments to officers not below Additional Commissioner, and the respondent's delegation order improperly assigned authority to an Officer Inland Revenue without specifying Section 122 powers, the notices were non est for lack of jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly allowed.
Questions settled- Is Section 4B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 a complete self-contained code that excludes general machinery provisions of assessment?
- Is the enforceability or operation of a statutory provision dependent upon the framing of rules under it?
- Can the Commissioner Inland Revenue delegate powers under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to an officer below the rank of Additional Commissioner?
- Is a constitutional writ petition maintainable against a show-cause notice issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction?
- Rehmatullah vs The State2020 KLR Criminal Cases 352, 2020 PHC 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah Rehan, Proprietor of Chatriwala International vs Muhammad2020 MLD 905 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, West Karachi, convicting the appellant under Section 265-H(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for defamation and ordering him to pay a fine directly to the complainant. The complainant alleged that the appellant sent a defamatory email and circulated pamphlets to his business associates. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, as key witnesses refused to support the complainant and the allegedly defamatory documents were not proved. The High Court further observed that the trial judge acted improperly by reopening the trial after arguments to summon a court witness and by directing the fine to be paid directly to the complainant instead of depositing it into the state treasury. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Can a trial court reopen a criminal case after closing the prosecution evidence and hearing final arguments to summon additional evidence without legal justification?
- Whether the burden of proof in a criminal defamation case shifts to the accused before the prosecution proves the charge beyond reasonable doubt?
- Can a criminal court direct that a fine imposed as a criminal sentence be paid directly to the complainant as private damages?
- Rehmatullah and 5 others vs Aziz Ullah and another2020 MLD 1990 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent in a murder case. The matter originated from a blind murder where the deceased was found injured in the respondent's guestroom and subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused, or if the evidence left reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It noted that the accused's conduct—calling a neighbor for help and assisting in transporting the victim to the hospital—was inconsistent with the hypothesis of guilt. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish any motive. The court affirmed the principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete and exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Finding no perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence, the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing that acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence.
Questions settled- What is the standard of proof required to convict an accused based solely on circumstantial evidence?
- Does the conduct of an accused in assisting a victim to the hospital create a reasonable doubt regarding their culpability in a murder charge?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
- Rehmat Uullah vs State, etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 861 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt given the conflicting evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing significant discrepancies. Specifically, the Court found the FIR was likely ante-timed, the ocular testimony was contradicted by medical reports regarding the number of wounds and the deceased's position, and the alleged eyewitnesses were unconvincing 'chance witnesses.' Furthermore, the motive was disproven by documentary evidence, and the recovery of the weapon was deemed suspicious and inconsequential. The Court emphasized the established principle that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, ordering his immediate release.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of wounds and the position of the deceased warrant the rejection of eyewitness accounts?
- Can an accused be acquitted if the prosecution fails to prove the motive and the recovery of the weapon is deemed suspicious?
- Is the testimony of 'chance witnesses' sufficient to sustain a conviction when they cannot provide a plausible reason for their presence at the crime scene?
- Does the existence of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal?
- Rehmat Khan vs Muhammad Ramzan, etc.2020 PLJ Peshawar 89 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Jan vs Wali Ur Rehman and 3 others2020 MLD 437 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-04-18Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Hayat & others vs Rafiq Ahmad Khan and others2020 PHC 526, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 32, 2021 YLR 607 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-18Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Alam vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1117 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and revision petition arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Sessions Judge Ghizer, who sentenced him to five years of simple imprisonment and a fine of ten thousand rupees. The prosecution case was that the appellant stabbed the victim multiple times with a knife, resulting in lower limb paralysis and cauda-equina syndrome. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the medical evidence did not specify the nature of the injuries and that there was no intent to kill. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court observed that the victim's testimony was natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon. Finding no illegality in the conviction, the Court maintained the five-year sentence but found the compensation inadequate given the victim's permanent paralysis. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and partially allowed the revision petition, enhancing the compensation to three hundred thousand rupees.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained where the medical evidence and victim's testimony establish life-altering injuries despite the absence of an explicit statement on the nature of injuries in the medical certificate?
- Can the appellate court enhance the compensation awarded under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the original amount is inadequate relative to the permanent incapacitation of the victim?
- Rehman Yaqoob (Rehmod) vs Zubaida Begum & others2020 SC AJK 28 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
- Rehman Ullah alias Insaf vs The State and othersPLJ 2020 SC (Cr.C.) 224, 2020 PSC (Crl.) 490, 2020 SCMR 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Rehman Ullah alias Insaf, seeking post-arrest bail in a murder and firing case. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the incriminating evidence against him. The Supreme Court observed that the occurrence took place in daylight, the FIR was lodged promptly, and the petitioner was specifically named as the principal accused with attribution of effective and ineffective firing. Furthermore, the Court noted that eye-witnesses supported the prosecution case, medical evidence corroborated the ocular account, a motive was established, a firearm recovered from the petitioner matched crime empties and a bullet from the deceased, and the petitioner had remained a fugitive from law for three years before his arrest. Holding that prima facie reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner's involvement, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, establishing the principle that fleeing from justice for a prolonged period, combined with consistent ocular and forensic corroboration, disentitles an accused to post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Is an accused who remained a fugitive for a prolonged period entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the recovery of a firearm matching crime empties and a bullet from the deceased constitute prima facie reasonable grounds of involvement?
- Whether prompt lodging of an FIR naming the accused with specific attribution of firing supports the refusal of bail?
- Rehana Rasheed, Pet Teacher, Government Girls High School, Siakh, Tehsil2020 SC AJK 106 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
- Rehan Rasheed vs Superintendent New Central Jail, Bahawalpur2020 PLD Lahore 523 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking a direction that the sentences imposed upon the petitioner in two separate criminal cases (FIR No. 269/2014 and FIR No. 291/2014) run concurrently rather than consecutively. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, could order the concurrent running of sentences awarded in different trials under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while Section 397 generally mandates that subsequent sentences commence after the expiration of previous ones, the trial and appellate courts possess the discretion to direct that such sentences run concurrently. Emphasizing that courts should adopt a charitable and liberal interpretation regarding the deprivation of liberty, the Court found no exceptional circumstances to deny the relief. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This judgment reaffirms the principle that judicial discretion under Section 397 should be exercised in favor of the convict to mitigate the cumulative impact of multiple sentences, provided no aggravating factors exist.
Questions settled- Can a court order sentences from separate trials to run concurrently?
- Does Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant courts the discretion to order concurrent sentences for multiple convictions?
- What is the general judicial approach regarding the concurrent running of sentences in multiple criminal trials?
- Rehan Mahmood, etc vs Chairman, Evacuee Trusty Property Board, etc2020 CLC 1769, 2020 CLC 1779, 2020 LHC 1530 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-30Read full judgment →
- Rehan Khalid vs Chairman Federal Board of Revenue Islamabad and 52020 SHC 954 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-12Read full judgment →
- Regional Tax Officer, Peshawar vs Safeer Jan2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favor of the respondent. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s receipt of funds, characterized as gifts from partners in a firm, constituted taxable income under Section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, due to the transactions not being conducted through banking channels. The Department argued that the failure to use banking channels for these gifts triggered the deeming provision of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that Section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, applies specifically to loans, advances, or gifts received in cash. In this instance, no actual cash exchange occurred; rather, the partners authorized the respondent to withdraw amounts from their respective shares in the firm, reflected through book entries. The Court determined that the provision was not attracted because no actual transfer of funds took place. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the lower forums correctly interpreted the law regarding the non-applicability of Section 12(18) to these specific book-entry transactions.
Questions settled- Does Section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 apply to transactions involving book entries where no actual cash is exchanged?
- Is a gift transaction between partners of a firm subject to the banking channel requirements of Section 12(18) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 if no cash transfer occurs?
- Can an authorization to withdraw funds from a partner's share in an Association of Persons be classified as a cash gift under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
- Regarding,Combating,the Pandemic of Corona Virus (Coved -19):, In the matter of vs N/A2020 P SC 1084 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The core legal questions addressed were the constitutionality of executive orders restricting inter-provincial movement and the adequacy of provincial measures in sealing specific areas without comprehensive support systems. The Court held that the executive authority lacks the power to restrict the fundamental right to freedom of movement through administrative orders, emphasizing that such restrictions must be imposed through legislation. Consequently, the Court struck down an executive order by the Government of Punjab that prohibited inter-provincial movement. Furthermore, the Court expressed concern over the lack of planning in Sindh regarding the sealing of Union Councils, specifically noting the absence of provisions for essential supplies and medical support for residents. The judgment establishes the principle that executive actions infringing upon fundamental rights, such as the freedom of movement, are ultra vires unless supported by specific legislative enactment, and underscores the state's positive obligation to provide adequate protection and resources to frontline healthcare and sanitary workers during a public health emergency.
Questions settled- Can the executive authority restrict inter-provincial movement through an administrative order without legislative enactment?
- Does the state have a constitutional obligation to provide protective equipment and support to frontline medical and sanitary staff during a pandemic?
- Regarding Colossal Losses Incurred by Pakistan Railways_ In the matter of vs N_a2020 SCMR 1216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the operational failures and infrastructure challenges facing Pakistan Railways, specifically regarding the Main Line-I (ML-I) project under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the Karachi Circular Railway (KCR). The Court addressed the status of the ML-I project, noting its pending approval by ECNIC, and identified critical bottlenecks hindering the KCR, specifically near Urdu University and Nazimabad, which require immediate intervention by the Government of Sindh. The Court directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, to facilitate the removal of these obstructions and ensure the construction of necessary railway crossings. Furthermore, the Court expressed grave concern over the frequent accidents and mismanagement within Pakistan Railways, attributing these issues to dilapidated infrastructure and incompetent personnel. Consequently, the Court mandated that the Government of Pakistan undertake a comprehensive overhaul of the Railways' administration and operations to ensure public safety and protect state property. The Court ordered the submission of progress reports from both the Government of Sindh and the Government of Pakistan through the Planning Commission to monitor compliance with these directives.
Questions settled- What specific actions are required from the Government of Sindh to facilitate the operationalization of the Karachi Circular Railway?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to direct the Government of Pakistan to overhaul the administrative structure of Pakistan Railways?
- What is the expected timeline for the submission of reports regarding the operational improvements of Pakistan Railways?
- Reference By The Lahore High Court Bar Association, Lahore through Mr. Faiz Ahmad Ranjha, Advocate/Secretary, Lahore High Court Bar Association, Lahore vs Mujtaba Chaudhry, Advocate, Lahore2020 PLJ Tr.C. (Pb. B.C.) 58 · Punjab Bar Council · 2019-11-09Read full judgment →
- Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of devolution issues2020 P SC 624 · Supreme Court of IrelandRead full judgment →
- Razia Nawaz vs Razia Nawaz2020 MLD 1508 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who is charged in an FIR for offences under Sections 324, 336, 337-F(i), 201, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, the complainant's mother-in-law, lured the complainant to a location under the guise of reconciliation, where he was attacked and suffered the amputation of his penis by co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations and the evidentiary record. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting significant contradictions between the FIR and the medical history regarding the number of assailants involved in restraining the complainant, as well as the absence of call data records to substantiate the alleged phone call. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioner is a woman, invoking the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates leniency for female accused. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, finding the case required further inquiry.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between the FIR and the medical history regarding the incident constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a female accused entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regardless of the gravity of the offence?
- Can the absence of call data records in a case involving an alleged phone call as a lure justify the grant of bail?
- Razia Bibi vs Muhammad Younas Bhatti and 4 others2020 CLC 688 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-27Read full judgment →
- Razak Latif and another vs ACE Securities Pvt Limited2020 SHC 304 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
- Raza Muhammad through his legal heirs vs Muhammad Jamal and 22020 SHC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-06Read full judgment →
- Raza and another vs The State and others2020 P SC (Crl.) 922, 2020 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that had converted a death sentence under Section 302(b) PPC to life imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around the appropriate conviction and sentence, specifically whether the petitioner's plea of acting under 'ghairat' (honor) due to an alleged attempt of rape on his sister by the deceased, consistently raised during investigation and trial, warranted a lesser charge. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's consistent first plea, found correct by the Investigating Officer and admissible under Article 27 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, established that the occurrence took place due to an act of the deceased that enraged the petitioner. Consequently, the Court converted the sentence from imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) PPC to 10 years imprisonment under Section 302(c) PPC, maintaining the compensation amount. The complainant's petition for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a consistent first plea of an accused, raised during investigation and trial, be considered for reducing a murder charge?
- Is the first plea of an accused admissible in evidence under Article 27 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Can a sentence under Section 302(b) PPC be converted to Section 302(c) PPC if the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation related to 'ghairat'?
- What is the evidentiary value of an accused's first plea regarding their state of mind at the time of an occurrence?
- Raza and another vs The State and 2 others2020 PLD Supreme Court 523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that converted a death sentence for murder under Section 302(b) PPC to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined the admissibility and evidentiary value of an accused's "first version" statement made to the police during investigation, particularly in light of Article 27, Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and Section 162 Cr.P.C. The Court held that an accused's statement to the investigating officer is covered by Section 161 Cr.P.C. and is relevant and admissible if used by the accused in their own favour, not being barred by Article 38 QSO or Section 162 Cr.P.C. It clarified that Article 27 QSO has little relevance for such statements. Applying the principle that a reasonable possibility of the defence plea being true benefits the accused, and considering the consistent plea of grave and sudden provocation, the Court converted the conviction from Section 302(b) PPC to Section 302(c) PPC, sentencing the petitioner to 10 years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining compensation.
Questions settled- Is a statement made by an accused to a police officer during investigation covered by Section 161 Cr.P.C.?
- Is the first version statement of an accused made to a police officer relevant and admissible if used by the accused in their own favour, despite the bars in Article 38 QSO and Section 162 Cr.P.C.?
- Does Article 27 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, apply to determine the relevancy of an accused's first version statement to an investigating officer?
- Does the reasonable possibility of a defence plea being true benefit the accused?
- Can a conviction under Section 302(b) PPC be converted to Section 302(c) PPC if grave and sudden provocation is established?
- Raza Al Mustafa vs Province of Punjab, etc2020 [M] C L R 1521 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-23Read full judgment →
- Rasool Khan vs Saif-Ur-Rehman & others2021 MLD 745, 2020 PHC 364 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
- Rasool Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology and others2020 IHC 38 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions filed by retired employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) who were originally employees of the Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department. The core legal question is whether these 'departmental employees' are entitled to pensionary benefits, including periodic increases, medical allowances, and other retirement benefits, commensurate with those granted by the Federal Government to civil servants, despite their transfer to a corporate entity. The Court held that while these employees ceased to be civil servants upon transfer, their terms and conditions of service were statutorily protected by the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. Consequently, the Court ruled that these employees are entitled to the same pensionary and retirement benefits as civil servants. The Court affirmed that denying these benefits would violate the statutory protections against adverse alteration of service conditions. However, the Court clarified that this relief does not extend to employees who joined PTCL after the 1991 Act or those who opted for Voluntary Separation Schemes.
Questions settled- Are employees of the former Telegraph and Telephone Department transferred to PTCL entitled to the same pension increases as Federal Government civil servants?
- Does the transfer of departmental employees to a corporate entity under the 1991 and 1996 Acts deprive them of their protected service conditions?
- Can employees of PTCL who were hired after the enactment of the 1991 Act invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court regarding their terms of service?
- Does the status of 'civil servant' persist for departmental employees after their transfer to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited?
- Rasool Bux, Shah Nawaz, Moula Bux, Faqeer Muhammad, Faiz Muhammad, Muhammad Bux and Hakim Ali vs Shahmir Son of Leemon2020 SHC 564 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a bail application filed by the applicants/accused seeking confirmation of their pre-arrest bail in a case involving charges of rioting, assault, and attempt to commit murder arising from a matrimonial dispute. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail in a counter-blast case where both parties sustained injuries and cross-FIRs were registered, making it a matter of further inquiry as to which party was the aggressor. The Sindh High Court held that since both sides sustained injuries in the incident and cross-cases were registered, the question of who was the aggressor required further inquiry at trial, and sending the applicants to jail would serve no useful purpose. The Court laid down the principle that in counter-version cases where both parties have lodged cross-FIRs and sustained injuries over a matrimonial dispute, the accused are entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail pending trial.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed in a case of counter-version where both parties have sustained injuries and lodged cross-FIRs?
- Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 Cr.P.C. when both parties claim the other to be the aggressor?
- Whether accused persons can be granted bail when injuries sustained by the complainant party are not declared dangerous to life?
- Rasool Bux Solangi and others vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 831 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed by retired civil servants (lecturers) seeking the grant of withheld annual increments and the subsequent re-fixation of their pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to these increments and benefits, despite the respondents' previous refusal, given that identical relief had been granted to other similarly situated employees by this Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the withheld increments and adjusted pensionary benefits. The ratio of the decision is that once a point of law regarding the terms and conditions of service is settled by the Court, the dictates of justice and good governance require that the benefit of such decision be extended to all similarly situated civil servants, rather than compelling them to initiate separate litigation. The key principle laid down is that the denial of such benefits to some, while granting them to others in identical circumstances, constitutes discrimination and violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of law.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant is entitled to the grant of annual increments as a matter of right?
- Does the denial of service benefits to some civil servants, while granting them to others in identical circumstances, constitute discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the benefit of a judicial decision regarding terms and conditions of service be extended to similarly situated civil servants who were not parties to the original litigation?
- Does the right to sue for pensionary benefits survive the death of a petitioner under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Rashid Khan vs Mst Momna2021 MLD 725, 2020 PHC 210 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-11Read full judgment →
- Rashid Chandio and another vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 456 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application concerns two police officials seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving murder and other offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, along with other police personnel, trespassed into the complainant's house and instigated a firing incident that resulted in the death of a 12-year-old girl. The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated, noting an inordinate delay in the FIR registration and the recording of witness statements, and asserting they were on security duty elsewhere at the time of the incident. The Court observed that the FIR did not attribute specific weapons or injuries to the applicants, and their vicarious liability remained a matter for trial. Finding that the investigation was complete, the applicants were no longer required for custody, and significant delays in recording witness statements without explanation warranted further inquiry, the Court held that the applicants' case fell within the scope of Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing the tentative nature of its findings.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without specific attribution of weapons or injuries, warrant the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Can bail be granted when there is an unexplained, inordinate delay in recording the statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
- Rashid Ali vs The State, etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1102, 2020 LHC 704 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, handed down by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the charges of abduction for ransom beyond a reasonable doubt, given contradictions in witness testimonies, withholding of the minor abductee, and unverified recoveries. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that multiple major loopholes, including failure to produce the minor victim, lack of nexus between the accused and the recovery of ransom or SIM cards, and unnatural conduct of the complainant, created lingering doubts. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case through unimpeachable evidence, and any reasonable doubt arising in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favour of the accused as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to produce a minor abductee as a witness warrants an adverse inference against the prosecution case?
- Does the recovery of ransom money from a place not in the exclusive possession of the accused support a conviction?
- Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right when material contradictions exist in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the delivery of ransom?
- Whether the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused if the prosecution fails to establish a direct nexus between the accused and the SIM card used for making ransom calls?
- Rashid Ahmed vs Muhammad Masood and another2020 P Cr. L.J 1126 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an acquittal judgment passed by a Judicial Magistrate in a criminal case involving Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the respondent issued a cheque for loan repayment which was dishonored. The core legal question was whether the issuance of a guarantee cheque, later dishonored, constitutes an offence under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, given the underlying contractual dispute. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the offence, specifically the 'dishonest intention' (mens rea) required for conviction. It found that the cheque was issued as a guarantee for construction work rather than for loan repayment, rendering the matter essentially civil in nature. The Court affirmed that mere dishonour of a cheque does not automatically constitute a criminal offence under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, without proof of fraudulent intent. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is doubled, and interference is only warranted if the judgment is perverse or based on misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Does the mere dishonour of a cheque issued as a guarantee constitute an offence under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is proof of dishonest intention (mens rea) a prerequisite for conviction under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What are the principles governing the interference of an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
- Can a dispute regarding the rendition of accounts arising from a construction contract be converted into criminal litigation under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Rasheed-Ud-Din and another vs Provincial Government through Chief2020 PLC (C.S.) 1029 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two consolidated writ petitions challenging public sector appointments made in the Gilgit-Baltistan Disaster Management Authority on the grounds of political favoritism, deviation from the recruitment plan, and arbitrary alteration of marking criteria by the Chief Minister after the initiation of the recruitment process and administration of the written test. The core legal question was whether public functionaries and the executive can alter recruitment criteria and deviate from advertised terms to the detriment of more meritorious candidates. The Court held that an advertisement for recruitment constitutes a firm commitment and promise by the state, and any subsequent deviation from the prescribed criteria or rules without fresh public notice is illegal, violative of the principle of equal opportunity, and constitutes a breach of public trust. Although the appointments of private respondents were tainted by political interference and arbitrary changes to the selection criteria, the Court noted that a considerable period of time had elapsed since their appointment and opted not to disturb them to avoid administrative disruption, instead directing that the aggrieved meritorious petitioner be adjusted against an available vacant post.
Questions settled- Whether public authorities can alter the criteria for recruitment after the commencement of the recruitment process and publication of the advertisement?
- Does an advertisement for recruitment in the public sector constitute a binding commitment to observe the published terms and conditions?
- Whether government officials are bound to follow illegal or arbitrary directives issued by executive authorities or political figures?
- Whether the alteration of marking criteria by a Chief Executive to favor specific candidates violates the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity?
- Rasheed Ahmed vs Muhammad Asim and another2020 [M] C L R 684 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-11Read full judgment →
- Rash Khan and 3 others vs Behram Khan through Legal Heirs and others2020 MLD 2037 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-09-04Read full judgment →
- Rao Noor Ahmed vs Shabbir Hussain Kapasi and 7 others2020 YLR 705 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-28Read full judgment →
- Rao Abdul Waheed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and others2020 [M] C L R 403, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 13 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a BS-19 officer of the Frequency Allocation Board (F.A.B.), filed a writ petition seeking directions for the payment of his salary and admissible allowances for the period between 30.08.2010 and 21.08.2015, during which he served as a deputationist in various departments and reported back upon repatriation, but was denied entry and salary until his compulsory retirement. The primary legal issue was whether a deputationist whose terms were not explicitly settled is entitled to pay protection matching his parent department, and whether withholding an employee's salary during administrative delays or security clearances violates fundamental constitutional rights. The Islamabad High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the terms of deputation cannot be varied to an employee's detriment without settlement between borrowing and lending authorities, and non-payment of salary violates the right to life and livelihood under Article 9 and dignity under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court apportioned salary liabilities among the Board of Investment, Cabinet Division, and F.A.B. according to respective periods.
Questions settled- Is a deputationist employee entitled to protection of the salary package applicable in their parent department?
- Does the non-payment or withholding of an employee's earned salary violate the fundamental right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution?
- Can a parent department deny salary to a repatriated employee on the ground of pending security clearance or lack of actual work performed?
- Rano Khan Jeho Abro vs SSP Shikarpur & Others2020 SHC 822 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-07Read full judgment →
- Ranjhan & Ors vs The State2020 SHC 734 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, Ranjhan and others, seeking release pending trial. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to the concession of bail in the circumstances of the case. Upon consideration of the matter, the court allowed the bail application. The court held that the applicants are granted bail, subject to the condition of furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each, along with a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of an equivalent amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The key principle applied is that the grant of bail is a judicial discretion exercised by the court to ensure the attendance of the accused at trial while upholding the presumption of innocence, provided the accused meets the requisite financial security conditions set by the court. The application was disposed of accordingly, with detailed reasons to be recorded in a subsequent order.
Questions settled- Are the applicants entitled to post-arrest bail?
- What are the conditions for the grant of bail in this matter?
- Rana Zahid Hussain Khan vs Raja Taleh Saeed Khan, etc2020 P SC 1439, 2020 PLJ SC 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court that allowed constitutional petitions and rejected the petitioner's nomination papers for election to the National Assembly. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner made a false statement or mis-declaration regarding his educational qualifications in his nomination papers and affidavit. The Supreme Court held that the record established the petitioner's degrees from Punjab University and the University of Balochistan were either cancelled or fraudulent, and that his assertion of being a graduate constituted a willful mis-declaration. The petitions were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that making a false statement or mis-declaration regarding educational qualifications in nomination papers justifies disqualification and the rejection of candidature, and the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction can properly review and set aside orders accepting such nomination papers when based on clear documentary evidence of fake credentials.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can reject nomination papers in its constitutional jurisdiction when a candidate makes a false statement regarding educational qualifications?
- Does a candidate who relies on cancelled or unverified educational testimonials make a mis-declaration in nomination papers?
- Can leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution be granted against a well-reasoned judgment upholding the rejection of nomination papers for fake credentials?
- Rana Nasir Ali vs Gul Agha and 6 others2020 YLR 2331 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings under the Act are maintainable when the parties are engaged in a bona fide civil dispute regarding title and possession of a property. The court held that the complaint was rightly dismissed, affirming that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is not intended to substitute for civil litigation or to be used as a tool to pressure an opponent in a civil dispute. The court emphasized that for an offense to be constituted under the Act, the presence of both actus reus and mens rea is essential. Where conflicting registered documents exist and the matter is pending before a civil court, the dispute is essentially civil in nature. Consequently, the court ruled that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated to resolve title disputes, as the necessary criminal intent is absent in such circumstances.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be initiated when there is a bona fide civil dispute regarding property title?
- Is the presence of both actus reus and mens rea required to constitute an offense under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
- Should a court entertain a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 when the validity of competing title documents is pending adjudication in a civil suit?
- Rana Muhammad Arshad vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2021 PLD Islamabad 42, 2020 IHC 160 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-03Read full judgment →
- Rana Imran Mehmood vs M/s Nib Bank Ltd & Ors2020 SHC 478 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-04Read full judgment →
- Rana Allah Ditto vs The State and two others2020 SCP 148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the petitioner for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the admissibility and evidentiary value of the 'first version' statement made by an accused to a police officer during investigation, and whether a plea of grave and sudden provocation could mitigate the sentence. The Supreme Court held that while the prosecution proved the act of killing, the petitioner’s consistent plea of grave and sudden provocation—supported by the investigating officer's admission—created a reasonable possibility of truth. The Court ruled that an accused’s statement to the police is admissible when used in the accused's own favor, as it is not barred by Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 or Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 302(b), convicted the petitioner under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reduced the sentence to ten years' imprisonment, establishing that reasonable doubt arising from a plausible defence plea entitles the accused to benefit.
Questions settled- Is a statement made by an accused to a police officer during investigation admissible if used by the accused in his own favor?
- Does the bar in Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prevent an accused from relying on their own statement made to the police?
- Does a reasonable possibility that a defence plea is true entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 302(c) based on a plea of grave and sudden provocation?
- Ramim Bibi vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1787 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner, Ramim Bibi, seeking the suspension of her sentence and release on bail pending the adjudication of her criminal appeal. The petitioner had been convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to two years and six months of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the Court was whether a convict serving a short sentence should be granted bail pending appeal when there is no immediate prospect of the appeal being heard. The Court held that the sentence was short and that keeping the petitioner in custody would likely result in her serving the entire sentence before the appeal could be decided, which would be impossible to rectify in the event of an acquittal. Emphasizing the principle of safe administration of justice, the Court suspended the sentence and granted bail, noting that the petitioner had not misused the concession of bail during the trial. The Court established that where a sentence is short and an early appeal hearing is unlikely, bail should generally be granted to avoid premature punishment.
Questions settled- Should a convict be granted bail pending appeal if the sentence is short and unlikely to be heard before the sentence is served?
- Does the fact that a petitioner did not misuse bail during the trial influence the decision to grant bail pending appeal?
- Is it appropriate to suspend a sentence where the petitioner would likely complete the entire term of imprisonment before the appeal is decided?
- Ramesh Lal and another vs Khatoo Mal and another2020 MLD 1769 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The instant criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code for the Qatl-e-amd of a minor. The prosecution case originated from a direct complaint filed after a delay of several months following the initial police disposal of the FIR under 'A' class. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence, the legal effect of inordinate delay in lodging a direct complaint and recording witness statements, and the sustainability of conviction when co-accused on the same set of evidence had been acquitted. The High Court evaluated the evidence, noting that the key prosecution witness did not support the case and that inconsistencies existed in the testimonies of other witnesses. Relying on established precedents regarding delay and benefit of doubt, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.
Questions settled- Whether delay in filing a direct complaint and recording witness statements casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction be maintained on the same set of evidence upon which co-accused have already been acquitted without independent corroboration?
- What is the effect of a key prosecution witness not supporting the case of the prosecution?
- When is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right?
- Rajib vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1342 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Arms Ordinance, and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions involved whether an unrepresented accused can be convicted without an identification parade when unnamed in the FIR, and whether delayed submission of weapon samples and inconsistent testimonies vitiate the prosecution case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the lack of an identification parade, delayed dispatch of weapon empties to the forensic expert, material contradictions in witness testimonies, failure to put crucial evidence to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the acquittal of a co-accused on identical evidence. The court laid down the principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal, and testimonies disbelieved as to one co-accused cannot support the conviction of another without independent corroboration.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to hold an identification parade for an accused whose name is not mentioned in the FIR renders the conviction unsustainable?
- Can a piece of evidence not put to the accused during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered against him?
- Whether testimonies of prosecution witnesses disbelieved with respect to an acquitted co-accused can be relied upon against another co-accused without independent corroboration?
- Does an unexplained and inordinate delay in dispatching crime empties and recovered weapons to the forensic expert compromise the evidentiary value of the forensic report?
- Rajib vs The State and others2020 YLR 2258 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and confirmation reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Rajib, under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and sentencing him to death, alongside compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused, lured the deceased under the pretext of a financial settlement regarding a motorcycle transaction and subsequently murdered him by a firearm shot. The core legal questions involved the assessment of eyewitness credibility, corroboration by medical and recovery evidence, and the legal effect of an unproven motive on the quantum of sentence in a murder case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent and trustworthy eyewitness and forensic evidence. However, because the alleged motive was vague, unproven, and attributed primarily to an absconding co-accused rather than the appellant, the court laid down the principle that failure to establish motive operates as a mitigating circumstance sufficient to warrant withholding the capital sentence, thereby commuting the death penalty to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive necessitate the acquittal of an accused whose presence and overt acts are otherwise established by reliable eyewitness testimony?
- Whether an unproven motive can serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a sentence of death to imprisonment for life in a murder case?
- Can a conviction under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained solely on the basis of eyewitness accounts corroborated by medical evidence and weapon recovery?
- What is the legal effect on the death sentence when the motive is attributed to an absconding co-accused rather than the convicted appellant?
- Raja Waseem Younis vs The Chairman, Azad Jammu and Kashmir2020 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 128, 2020 P SC 1149, 2020 CLC 210 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-08-24Read full judgment →
- Raja Umar Hayat Khan and others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and others2020 YLR 266 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-02-06Read full judgment →
- Raja Naveed vs Province of Sindh & 06 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1573, 2020 SHC 984 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by a police constable seeking the resumption of his salary and continuation of service, alleging that it was withheld without due process. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the withholding of salary by a civil servant, or whether jurisdiction is barred by Article 212 in favor of the Service Tribunal. The court held that salary forms part of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, and therefore, under the constitutional bar contained in Article 212 and settled precedents, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such matters in its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was consequently dismissed as non-maintainable, leaving the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appropriate service tribunal. The key principle laid down is that disputes concerning the salary and terms and conditions of service of civil servants fall exclusively within the domain of the relevant Service Tribunal under Article 212, ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the withholding of a civil servant's salary?
- Does the Sindh Services Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to decide issues relating to the salary and terms and conditions of service of a civil servant under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Can factual controversies regarding the genuineness of an appointment be resolved in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Raja Muhammad Nadeem vs The State and another2020 PLD Supreme Court 282, 2020 SCP 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerned the legality of omnibus orders issued by various High Courts for the en masse release of under-trial prisoners and convicts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The core legal question was whether High Courts possessed the jurisdiction, particularly under Article 199 of the Constitution or Section 561-A Cr.P.C., to issue such blanket directions, circumventing established statutory bail and release procedures. The Supreme Court held that High Courts lacked the jurisdiction to issue wholesale directions for prisoner release. It clarified that suo motu jurisdiction is not conferred on High Courts under Article 199, and Section 561-A Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to interfere with procedural courses or as a substitute for statutory remedies. The Court emphasized that judicial actions must remain within the legal framework, even in extraordinary circumstances. Consequently, the impugned orders and bails granted thereunder were set aside, and actions taken by Provincial Governments under Section 401 Cr.P.C. were declared unlawful. The Court, however, approved specific categories of prisoners for release, aligning with existing legal provisions for individual consideration.
- Raja M. Raheel vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax2020 PTD (Trib.) 403 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-05-08Read full judgment →
- Raja Khurram Ali Khan vs Tayyaba Bibi (minor) daughter of Muhammad2020 PLD Supreme Court 146, 2020 P SC (C rl.) 144, 2020 SCP 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan adjudicated three criminal appeals challenging a High Court judgment that enhanced sentences and set aside acquittals related to the ill-treatment of a minor housemaid. The core legal questions revolved around the High Court's jurisdiction to enhance sentences passed by its Single Bench in original criminal jurisdiction, the sufficiency of evidence for conviction under Sections 328-A, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), and 201 PPC, and the principles governing appeals against acquittal and the evidential value of child victim testimony. The Court held that a Division Bench of the High Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 411-A Cr.P.C. or its revisional/inherent powers to enhance sentences passed by a Single Bench, as the latter is not an 'inferior court'. The State's proper remedy for sentence enhancement is a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court maintained the convictions of Mst. Maheen Zafar for offences under Sections 328-A, 337-A(i), and 337-F(i) PPC, and Raja Khurram Ali Khan for Sections 328-A and 201 PPC, finding the prosecution had discharged its 'legal' burden of proof and the trial court erred in discarding the child victim's testimony. The Court set aside the High Court's sentence enhancement due to jurisdictional infirmity but, invoking Article 187 of the Constitution for 'complete justice', issued notice to the accused for potential sentence enhancement.
- Raja Gul Shahid Ahmad vs Administrator/Director General, Phota and 32020 PLJ Lahore 488 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-19Read full judgment →
- Raja Gul Shahid Ahmad vs Administrator/Director General Phota Lahore2020 PLJ Lahore 467 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-19Read full judgment →
- Raja Falak Javed vs The State and another2021 YLR 388, 2020 LHC 2001 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged rape of the complainant. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the prompt registration of the FIR, supporting medical evidence including the medico-legal certificate showing a fresh rupture of the hymen, and the absence of any motive for false implication. The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to bail, as overwhelming prima facie evidence exists connecting him to the heinous crime, and consent to travel with the accused does not imply consent to sexual intercourse under Section 375 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that accompaniment of an accused by a victim does not vitiate the charge of rape where sexual intercourse occurs against her will and without her consent, and sufficient incriminating material disentitles an accused to post-arrest bail in heinous offences.
Questions settled- Whether consent to travel with an accused constitutes consent to sexual intercourse under Section 375 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does prompt registration of an FIR rule out the possibility of false involvement of an accused in a rape case?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when sufficient prima facie evidence connects him to a heinous offence without requiring further inquiry?
- Raja Arshad Mehmood vs Mst. Maliha Malik and others2020 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an accused facing trial for homicide and murderous assault before an anti-terrorism court, sought the withdrawal and transfer of his pending constitutional petition and bail cancellation application from the Islamabad High Court to another High Court under Article 186-A of the Constitution. The transfer was requested on the ground that multiple judges of the Islamabad High Court, including the Chief Justice, had previously recused themselves from hearing allied matters connected to the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that while powers of transfer under Article 186-A are exercised most sparingly and cautiously only in extraordinary situations, the successive recusals of three out of four available judges left virtually no option to constitute a proper Division Bench without prejudicing the parties. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that it was expedient and in the interest of justice to withdraw the subject petitions from the Islamabad High Court and transfer them to the Peshawar High Court for disposal in accordance with law, thereby allowing the constitutional petition.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court transfer a case from one High Court to another under Article 186-A of the Constitution in extraordinary situations?
- Does the repeated recusal of multiple judges of a High Court justify the transfer of a case to another High Court to secure the ends of justice?
- Are powers of case transfer under Article 186-A to be exercised sparingly and cautiously rather than in run-of-the-mill cases?
- Raja Afaq Ali Khan s/o Raja Farid Khan vs Mst. Qaisra Arshad d/o2020 SC AJK 46 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Raiyet Ali vs The State and another2020 YLR 1813 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for murder and a criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence from life imprisonment to death. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through circumstantial evidence, given the absence of direct eyewitnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the circumstantial evidence—including the alleged motive, recovery of the weapon, and the medical evidence—was inconsistent and failed to form a continuous, unbroken chain linking the appellant to the crime. The Court emphasized that suspicion, regardless of its strength, cannot substitute for legal proof. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that an extra-judicial confession made while in police custody is inadmissible, and the mere recovery of a body from an accused's house is insufficient for conviction absent other corroborating evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement, affirming that the benefit of doubt is a fundamental right of the accused.
Questions settled- Is the recovery of a dead body from the house of an accused sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of other evidence?
- Can an extra-judicial confession made while an accused is in police custody be admitted as evidence?
- Does a conflict between ocular account and medical evidence regarding the time of death entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
- What is the standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence to sustain a criminal conviction?
- Rahim Dino & another vs Learned Asst: Commissioner/ Lao Islamkot @2020 SHC 476 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-04Read full judgment →